hurricanesfandomcom-20200216-history
Forum:2008 Atlantic hurricane season
September Week Three 12L.LAURA AoI: West of Azores This may look destined to become subtropical or extratropical or an ULL, but just look at the models. They agree on this system exploding near the Azores, then perhaps heading back west to affect the Canadian Maritimes. This could be interesting. 2007Astro'sHurricane 20:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) :Based on the models, I predict a cat. 1 strength subtropical storm making landfall around Lunenburg, Nova Scotia on October 2. 2007Astro'sHurricane 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ::You know, after this whole season is over, I'm going to count how many hurricanes we *actually* have had, and how many we'd have had if all your predictions had all been confirmed...;-)--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) ::There's no such thing as a subtropical hurricane, Astro. Bob rulz 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :::It actually has happened before. Link and track. (Not that I think it's likely to happen again anytime soon.) --Patteroast 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC) ::::Is it became 94L.INVEST? Storm's Eye 13:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :::::Ok. Got it. It's above this. LOL Storm's Eye 15:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :::I'm revising my forecast. 17 named storms and 5 retired names. 2007Astro'sHurricane 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) ::::From the NHC TWO: A LARGE NON-TROPICAL LOW PRESSURE AREA IS LOCATED OVER THE CENTRAL NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN ABOUT 400 MILES WEST-SOUTHWEST OF THE WESTERNMOST AZORES. THIS SYSTEM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SLOWLYACQUIRE SUBTROPICAL OR TROPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS AS THE LOW MOVES WEST OR WEST-SOUTHWESTWARD AT 10 TO 15 MPH. 2007Astro'sHurricane 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC) :::::Enh, we'll see. It's not impressing me at the moment. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 03:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC) 95L. INVEST Now an invest and up as 95L on NRL, and medium-risk on the TWO. Expected to skirt Newfoundland and give them some heavy rain. 2007Astro'sHurricane 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC) :This thing isn't initialized by many models but the ones that do initialize it really like it; all of them make it a hurricane. I'm still reserving judgement based simply on how far north it is. It's level with the Azores. Cyclogenesis of any kind up there is almost unheard of. Vince was farther south than that. Edouard in '90 did it but it's rare. And, for the record, there are only two subtropical hurricanes in HURDAT (1968 and 1979). -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 19:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC) ::Location's reminding me of last year's Jerry. It'll be interesting to see how strong this thing can get. --Patteroast 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC) :::Either this storm already has hurricane-force winds, or it is approaching there. I'm wondering what would happen if NHC initialized it as a STS at hurricane strength...muahaha! 2007Astro'sHurricane 21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC) ::::High risk now, NHC says "appear to be acquiring tropical characteristics". --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) :::::I agree with the Hurricane Center, this storm appears marching confidently toward tropicalness. This picture looks very promising http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t2/avn-l.jpg. Stay tuned. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::TCFA issued, NHC says it could be tropical or subtropical later today. --Patteroast 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Subtropical Storm Laura ... or it could be subtropical now! First advisory out from NHC, has a chance of hitting hurricane strength. --Patteroast 09:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC) :NHC isn't predicting that to happen, but if it does then they will have to totally screw up the definiton of subtropical, yay! Glad I was right. 2007Astro'sHurricane 23:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Tropical Storm Laura Surprised no one mentioned the transition to fully tropical this morning. Though it doesn't look like it has much time before it goes ''extra''tropical. Albireo 22:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC) :Alas, it is indeed a last hurrah. Laura appears finished. It's always cool to get a transitioner every once in a while, especially that far north. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 04:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Week Four Will a stormless (namewise) week be followed by a stormy one?--L.E./ 16:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC) AoI: SE of Carolinas Rainbands from that large Pacific system. 2007Astro'sHurricane 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :Just rain. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) ::Low-risk on NHC TWO. 2007Astro'sHurricane 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) :::"No signs of organization at this time",they say.--L.E./ 00:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) ::::To close to land...next! -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) :::::Re-emerged on other side of Yucatan, good convection flaring up, could hit Florida. 2007Astro'sHurricane 14:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::CMC merges this low with the one near Tehuantepec and the other one near Colombia, making a strong tropical storm before hitting Cuba. We'll see. 2007Astro'sHurricane 14:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) :::::::Ha! I love CMC. I think it also predicted that thing in the Central Atlantic to become a monster and hit Iceland as a major hurricane or something. In other words, CMC, historically has been hard to take seriously. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::This part of the system has headed north into shear, but the stuff behind it may be worth watching. 2007Astro'sHurricane 23:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC) AoI: East of Barbados Could be the Cape Verde System, large wave behind 93L. 2007Astro'sHurricane 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :Wind shear sux. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) AoI: Central Atlantic A rather condensed pocket of convection. 2007Astro'sHurricane 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :Astro, you really need to find something to do. I worry about you sometimes. If you stare at that screen long enough, you're gonna start seeing pink elephants and purple clouds. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) AoI: West of Cape Verde A new wave has rolled off. 2007Astro'sHurricane 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC) AoI: SE of Cape Verde Wave behind it. 2007Astro'sHurricane 14:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) AoI: Yucatan to Belize to Honduras to Nicaragua to SW Caribbean to Panama to Colombia Some models predict this to head north and interact with Belize system. 2007Astro'sHurricane 14:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) :Sorry, I renamed the system to save space, could be one to watch. 2007Astro'sHurricane 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) AoI: Just west of Mouth of Mediterranean Please take a legitimate look at this. It looks more tropical than Josephine, albeit heavily sheared but that looks to be letting up. I think we will see a tropical depression by this time tomorrow. It will probably drift west similar to Josephine, maybe only a threat to the Azores. current image, click animate at top -Winter123 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC) :You're a huge northeastern north Atlantic fan, aren't you? Ever since Vince? Well, I'm more of a Cape Verde-Caribbean-East Coast-Azores fan, but I was about to list this system myself, but under a different name: Between Morocco and Portugal. Well, unfortunately, this system will likely not last long. Models predict the high to be strong enough for the low to slam right into Morocco within 24 hours, and it's already at the shore. Also, storms rarely drift west from the NE area, and Laura did because the high at that time was directly north of it. However, hopefully this could emerge south of the high or something, and I'll keep looking at this area. 2007Astro'sHurricane 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC) ::Why should we expect this to become a tropical depression within a day when the NHC doesn't even mention it? Bob rulz 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Program for use in tropical cyclone QPF ..but weather weenies might like it too. heheheh It's a series of scripts that are run in-house through a GUI named cliqr (http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/web/cliqr.html), and it runs for all ATCF-entered invests. It shows the rainfall graphics for the systems that most closely match ongoing invests, with greater weight placed on location, size (ROCI), and forward motion than the other parameters. If nothing else, you can look at the list of matches and see where they went. Thegreatdr 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :Ooh, grown-up toys, yay! -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Retirements at a glance So, now with six named storms, it seems linke we can discuss retirements now. Here is my take so far: *Arthur - 10% - damage not severe *Bertha - 7% - minimal damage *Cristobal - 5% - foregettable, hardly caused any damage *Dolly - 60% - caused over $1 billion in damage, and 21 deaths *Eduoard - 10% - damage total unknown, but probably not severe *Fay - 75% - caused over 100 deaths, severe damage possible. Interestingly, this could be the first time the same letter in the same list is retired twice, as Fay replaced Fran for the 2002 season. What are your thoughts? 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC) :I'm having a hard time corroborating the 100+ deaths from Fay. Most of the sources I'm finding are suggesting 14, and that the original count from Haiti was greatly exaggerated. I'd wait till damage figures are in, but right now I'd put Fay at more like 25% based on what I know right now. I think I'd also nudge Dolly down to 50%, as the death toll/damage estimates are not ''exceptionally high and the affected countries (US and Mexico) seem to be somewhat conservative with nominating names for retirement. Albireo 15:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ::By the way, Fay did not replace Fran in the 2002 season, it replaced it in the 1996 season, so this wouldn't be the first time. Here are my estimates: ::Arthur: 4% - It wasn't that bad, and storms cause mudslides all the time in Central America. ::Bertha: 3% - Although it broke a few records, damage in Bermuda wasn't severe. ::Cristobal: 2% - Damage minimal, although this is the only storm so far to follow the Gulf Stream, and it caused some flooding in Nova Scotia, but not much. ::Dolly: 49% - I'm not going to place any bets on this storm, as damage wasn't really that bad, and most flooding occured inland while it was a depression. However, it is still a devastating storm, which caused over 1 billion in damage, so it has a good chance nevertheless. ::Edouard: 6% - Although hurricane watches were originally issued, it never became a hurricane and was really not that bad. ::Fay: 29% 43% - Damages in the US and Cuba were minimal, storms kill dozens in Haiti all the time and not get retired, the bus crash in the Dominican Republic was indirect, but each country does have some chance of retiring it, and it's not done yet. Update: severe flooding in Florida and other places. ::Gustav: (tenative) 78% 77% 80% - Based on the current forecast, but still too early to tell. Update: over 60 deaths in Haiti, massive evacuation initiated in Louisiana.2007Astro'sHurricane 00:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ::Hanna: (tenative) 52% 70% 81% - It hasn't done anything yet, but I dunno, I just have a bad feeling about this one... Update: Nearly 140 540 deaths in Haiti. ::Ike: (tenative) 80% 94% - I know it hasn't done anything yet, but it could seriously wreck parts of Florida and the Gulf. Update: Massive devastation in Texas.2007Astro'sHurricane 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC) ::Josephine: (tenative) 21% 6% 2% - It's way too early to tell, and it looks like a dud, but there is a chance it may affect Bermuda and Atlantic Canada. Update: Dissapated, but remnants are still existing. Update: Only some breezes in Cape Verde to speak of. 2007Astro'sHurricane 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 2007Astro'sHurricane 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC) ::So, there you have it. 2007Astro'sHurricane 22:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Just a comment on the question of whether a name with the same letter has been retired from the same list more than once... it's happened multiple times already. Allen > Andrew (x2) > Alex. Alicia > Allison (x3) > Andrea. Frederic > Fabian (x4) > Fred (upcoming). And most strikingly the back-to-back Marilyn > Michelle > Melissa. --Patteroast 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :When was the last time a tropical storm was retired? One and only Allison? Seems Fay has way to go to reach that. However, if the track swifts a bit more to the south Big Easy might get in troubles. -- 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC) You took my title. *Arthur: 5%. 9 deaths total and a fair bit of damage. Neither of these are really substantial criterion for retiring a storm. *Bertha: 2%. It was a certainly notable tropical cyclone, but that's all it has to its name is notability. It only caused three deaths, and none of these were in Bermuda. *Cristobal: 1%. Honestly. The thing did negligibly little. If Chantal wasn't retired last year (and it wasn't), Cristobal stands no chance at all. *Dolly: 45%. This goes off estimated damages being equal to or less than final. If the estimates are greater than actual, it's just a 25%. Fair death toll. *Edouard: 1%. Ladies and gentlemen...what on Earth did this thing do? *Fay: 10%, possibly higher. Fair death toll. Will wait for damage reports. *Gustav: 88%. Made a mess of the Caribbean. High death toll and damages. *Hanna: 85%. What on EARTH happened here?!? This thing ALONE killed more people than ALL OF 2007!!! I hate to do this, but it's got lower chances than Gustav for the sadly unavoidable reason that it's Haiti. But still, axe it. *Ike: ?? *Josephine: 0%. Negligible. Jake52 01:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC) :*Arthur: 3%: Nothing out of the ordinary, your bog standard storm hitting a Central America coast. :*Bertha: 12%: Broke a record or two, scared Bermuda. Not much damage though :*Cristobal: 2%: What did it do again? :*Dolly: 34%: Whacked south Texas. :*Edouard: 10%: Made Houston sit up and take note. Didn't do much in the end though. :*Fay: 39% 59%: Pounded Florida with severe flooding in places. Damage in Carribean was nothing unusual. New Orleans a little lucky not to get a stronger hit due to it staying over the Florida Panhandle. :*Gustav: 62%: Gave New Orleans a scare, but caused flooding to the West. Damage in Haiti :*Hanna: 46%: Damage in Haiti & Bahamas, worsened by... :*Ike: 100%: Prob retired in the Carribean anyway, looks like it's going to be very bad on US Landfall. Death toll set to be higher than Katrina? :*Josephine: 0%: It existed. Not much more I can say about it. - Salak 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC), UPDATED: 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC) ::Eric's divine and always superior pontification: ::*Arthur: 5% - just for catching NHC with its pants around its ankles...and setting a really cool record too. ::*Bertha: 9% - I've always wanted to visit Bermuda, apparently Bertha felt the same way. She had a jolly old time out there for about a month. What is it about Berthas that make them so hard to kill? ::*Cristobal: 4% - Ooh, a storm brushing by the Outer Banks and doing absolutely nothing! Gold star for originality, Cris. ::*Dolly: 43% - Kicked the shit out of South Padre but they came out of it reasonably well. ::*Ed: 10% - nuisance storm. Pissed on a couple people in North Texas but that's about it. ::*Fay: 34% - I think Fay's raised the sea level of the Gulf of Mexico about 8 feet. Pretty much every county in the state of Florida got at least two inches of rain from this thing. ::*Gustav: 87% - Gustav gave Cuba a shellacking and those floods in Haiti were really bad. Louisiana actually fared the best of the three. With 125 deaths and $10 billion in damage, I'd be stunned if Gustav isn't retired. ::*Hanna: 85% - Man, the sitation in Haiti has turned into an epic catastrophe. This is Haiti's worst hit since Jeanne. Gonaives is a hellhole, simply put. If 535 dead doesn't earn retirement, then the WMO needs to be lined up and shot. ::*Ike: 92% - Wow, what a storm! Very bad floods again again hit the Greater Antilles hard. It has just been a disasterous season for them. The situation in Texas is not much better right now. The destruction on the Bolivar Peninsula is epic. Ike effectively wiped four towns from the face of the Earth. This is turning out to be the storm of the season. It's been a long time since we've seen three (four if you count Fay) consecutive devastating storms like this. '04 didn't do it, '05 didn't do it. This is unbelievable. ::*Josephine: 2% - At least the Verdes got a nice breeze. ::Will revise as the season goes along. -- [[User:SkyFury|''Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 04:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) ::I think that Fay should be retired... if any of you lived in Orlando you'd understand the extent of the flooding that occured. Lakes that were 3 feet low a week ago are about 8 feet too high now and 4 landfalls... I cant' wait till the next one! 09:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) :::Having just looked at photos of Florida after Fay, I've upped my figure for its retirement. I've heard quite little about the impact of it here (UK) though; think I've seen it mentioned in the news briefly twice. - Salak 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC) ::::I disagree. I don't think it should be retired and I definately don't think it will be retired. The flooding wasn't severe enough or widespread enough, nor did it cause enough damage. The fact that it wasn't a hurricane doesn't help. Tropical Storm Bret in 1993 killed 124 people in Venezuela in catastrophic floods (the exact same number as Ivan) and wasn't retired. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC) My own totally non-scientific predictions thus far: *Arthur: 0% *Bertha: 0% *Cristobal: 0% - Let's face it, all three had pretty negligible impact in terms of damage/fatalities, and these are what get storms retired. No sense in giving them a piddly 1 or 2% chance when it ain't gonna happen. *Dolly: 40% - Relatively high damage but nothing eye popping. *Edouard: 0% - As above. *Fay: 33% - Helluva wet storm, but I'm not willing to up the odds unless some striking damage figures come out. *Gustav: 100% - Based on damages to Cuba, large-scale evacuations and disruptions. Damage estimates over $20B, hard to imagine not retiring this one. *Hanna: 95% - Over 500 dead, she'd have to pull a Gordon not to be retired. *Ike: 100% - Damage estimates over $25B mean Ike is a shoe-in for retirement. *Josephine: 0% - Total dud. Really what it all boils down to, for me, are the criteria upon which storms get retired. Sure, they may have broken a record or been a nuisance, but really these are not things that storms get retired for. To date, I'd not be surprised if no storms are retired - but with September looming and Gustav looking dangerous, I'm sure that sentiment will change. Albireo 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I'm new but heres mine perdiction so far: *Arthur: 0% - A little tiny storm that hit mexico and was brought to life by a pacific hurricane not happenin *Bertha: 1% - sure the long lived july storm but did nothing but died in iceland *Dolly: 42% Even though its an estimate its possible come on people *Edouard: 5% Face it this storm should have been retired back in 96 and I was 2 years old *Fay: 48% - If this name gets retired im runnin up the hills like allison *Gustav: 100% - Since we havent had an official cat 4 in a while this will be it for Gustav, estimate 20.0 billions *Hanna: 95% - 535 deaths If noel got retired last year this is the next name and if it isn't WMO is on crack *Ike: 100% - This thing just raped the shit out of Texas i mean OMG * Josephine: 0% - Turned around to myself turns outs shes a dud I excluded cristobal on the list because it hardly did anything Looks like this season already has another hurricane to my perdictions this season will be big. J.T 2:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC) *Arthur - 0% *Bertha - 0% *Cristobal - 1% *Dolly - 60% Historically would have been retired. Wait for damage estimates. *Edouard - 10% Unlikely. *Fay - 20% Fair amount of Caribbean flooding, but not much. *Gustav - 100% Really obvious. *Hanna - 85% Over 500 dead in Haiti. No one wants another Gordon, and Noel was retired last year for a lot less. Probably gone. *Ike - Can't say for certain right now, but the forecasts look nasty. If it follows the forecasts, 90+% *Josephine - 0% --- Let's be realistic here. *Arthur - 0% *Bertha - 0% *Cristobal - 0% *Dolly - 30% *Edouard - 0% *Fay - 35% *Gustav - 95% *Hanna - 65% *Ike - 100% (deaths in Haiti, damage to Cuba, damage to the U.S.) *Josephine - 0% Bob rulz :I note that Ike managed to kill 47 or 48 in Haiti despite never getting very near...what's the total for hurricane dead in Haiti so far this year?It seems something in the geography or infrastructure there puts Haitians at particular risk.Do their nominations for retirement usually get honored?--L.E./ 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC) ::The last total I saw put the dead at over 1,000 from a month of storms but that ''may be an overestimate. I'm guessing it could still easily be at least 600. I'm not sure if Haiti even requests storms for retirement, but look up Gordon in 1994. Killed over 1,100 in Haiti yet wasn't retired. A travesty in my opinion. Bob rulz 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) My Predictions: *Arthur - 0% *Bertha - 0% *Cristobal - 0% *Dolly - 40%: If the 1,200,000,000 damage prediction is correct, I could see Dolly being retired. *Edouard - 0% *Fay - 25%: Decent amount of flooding in Florida; made landfall in Florida 4 times. We'll see. *Gustav - 100%: I cannot see any reason why Gustav would not be retired. *Hanna - 90%: I know, I know, Gordon wasn't retired, but with all the public backlash the WMO experienced from that, I can't see them making that mistake again. *Ike - 100%: Heavily damaged nearly all of Northeastern Texas, especially Galveston. Obvious candidate for retirement. *Josephine - 0% There you go. |'C A I N E R'||''ninety-one| 19:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC) :Arthur - No. :Bertha - Bermuda has gone through much, much, much worse. :Cristobal - No. :Dolly - A very slight maybe - while damages are considerable, one billion is no longer as much as it used to be. :Edouard - No. :Fay - Wasn't a great storm, but there's not much there to support retirement. :Gustav - Yes. Definitely yes. The US is definitely going to submit a 15 billion dollar name for retirement, and the WMO will definitely retire it. :Hanna - Probable, but Haiti doesn't much like (or whatever) to recommend storms for retirement, else there would be plenty more off-limits names in the Atlantic. If it was anywhere else, it would most likely be a lock. :Ike - The damage estimates are really, really high, and the damage pictures are really, really nasty. (That's a yes, in case you were wondering.) :Josephine - No. Squarethecircle 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC) For the record (no pun intended), there have never been three consecutive retirees (nor three consecutive Hall of Famers if you like my system better) in the history of ever. '''G'ustav, H'anna and '''I'ke have a really good chance of doing it this year...and for all intents and purposes it should happen. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 05:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Cleaning up the clutter I've just archived the August discussion (excluding active storms) and Fay to their own archive pages; apologies if I wasn't supposed to do that. The page was just getting way too cluttered for me. Probably want to give Gustav its archive page soon, too. Thoughts?--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :Agreed. I just archived some old July discussion last week. I would keep Gustav up for at least another week as aftermath reports come in. HPC is still issuing advisories on inland flood threats from the remnants of Gustav. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 16:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) ::How about partially archiving and leaving the last two or three parts of it? Do we really still need the sub-section about Gustav-as-an-invest? --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC) :::Well just for the sake of keeping everything together and we don't have to keep it up much longer. I'd say by the time Ike is approaching landfall on the Gulf Coast (and the associated storm surge of posts come in) we should move Gus to a new home. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC) ::::Isn't it Hanna's turn now?--L.E./ 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC) :::::Yup. Think the remnants passed us here in the UK the other night. - Salak 11:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) ::::::Archived Ike too, given that it went away a good while ago. --Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Archived the first few weeks of September; keeping week 4 (and Laura) open for now in case something develops out of those AoIs.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 16:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC) What are the Storm Floaters? I see that there are currently 3 GOES satellites active and http://kd4dcy.net/blog/?p=425 explains "The GOES satellite has one visible-light imaging system that is kept in reserve for tropical storm situations. That camera is kept zoomed and focused on the current tropical system of interest" So how are so many floaters listed on http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/satellite.shtml and http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters.html? 14:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC) :I assume the camera can refocus to a given coordinate within just a few minutes or even seconds. It's not that each image is taken exactly simultaneously, just within the same 15 minute period. Those images can be put through a myriad of spectrums which you see in the variety of IRs (which have been fantastically expanded). I don't know this for certain, it's just what I assume is going on. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The Safir-Simpson Scale Seems to me the question has to be raised, but in the wake of Ike and the number of "Let's not run, it's only category 2"...should the scale be revised? It's useful enough, but when it becomes a pretext to ignore potentially devastating storms that happens to have somewhat weaker wind field, it's dangerous. Ike has made the point, for those who still missed it, that category and destructive potential were two, very, very different things (Katrina, for that matter - C-3 at landfall, after all)--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) :Problem is, what additional objective and measurable data do you want to add into the criteria? 04:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC) ::I agree, the SSHS is only useful for estimating possible wind damage, not surge or rain flooding damage. It would be useful if it said "surge of a cat. 5", etc. One should look at more than the wind and be more educated before deciding whether to evacuate. 2007Astro'sHurricane 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC) The SSHS is fairly analogous to the Richter Scale when talking about earthquakes. The Richter Scale is good for measuring raw seismic energy, just as the SSHS is good for measuring the raw intensity of a hurricane. While it and related scientific scales are still used within the scientific community to discuss the raw power of an earthquake, it's use by public agencies has diminished. The USGS favors the Modified Mercalli scale, which is a somewhat more subjective scale that is intended to measure the effect of an earthquake, not just its power. A similar scale for measuring the effect of a hurricane would be highly useful for governmental agencies, especially in issuing warnings to the public, as such a scale would be a better indicator of how damaging a storm will be, not just how intense. The problem the IP (4.154.0.95) brings up before is a valid one, but one that can be addressed. As has been pointed out, intensity and wind speed are only one facet of a hurricane's destructive potential. Other factors, such as inland flooding from rain and, more particularly, storm surge are important - in fact, storm surge is usually the most dangerous element of a tropical cyclone. It should not be too hard to develop a relatively good system of forecasting a storm's damage potential based on key factors such as intensity, size, forward speed and the like. A major weakness is the subjective nature in talking about "potential damage", but subjectivity need not be a major issue. The MM scale in earthquakes is measured in subjective terms, such as how hard it is to stand, how much things wobble, what sorts of structures are damaged. These are the things that truly interest the general public, rather than objective measures such as wind speed and pressure. Something like the following could be made up as a subjective scale for tropical cyclones: Okay, so that was longer than I thought it would be :) Anyway, that's just an off the cuff example - but really I see no reason that a "subjective" scale cannot be developed that measures the predicted damage a storm will do, not just it's intensity. Might get people to take storms more seriously. Albireo 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC) :Just so you know, '04s Matthew and '05s Gert had exactly the same wind speed at peak intensity (40 knots) and there was little appreciable difference in their effects. The root of the problem here is that every storm is different. The damage never depends solely on wind speed. The wind speed, pressure gradient (the pressure difference between the low of the storm and the pressure of the surrounding environment), the size of the storm (as was the case with Ike), and the amount of diffluence in the atmosphere to fuel the rainstorms. Rain is an incredibly powerful killer. Water kills more people than any other entitiy (apart from time). It is very difficult to predict how much rain a storm will drop, because that depends on a lot of different things. The damage also hangs a lot on the location of landfall and the terrain. Foreward speed, too. So there really isn't a way you can categorize these systems until after they happen (like tornadoes). Nothing is cut and dry and no matter what scale you set up, there will still be holes where people think they're safe and they're not. That's why basically all storms making landfall need to be watched very carefully. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 04:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ::I do know, that's why I put them both up there in spite of having different effects :) I think that was the whole point, was to demonstrate that a storm's destructive potential has to do with a lot more than windspeed. While it is true there is no way to accurately forecast how much damage a storm can do, I believe there is a lot of benefit to the notion of placing anticipated damages on a numeric scale. How many folks refused to leave the Galveston area because Ike was "just a cat 2" storm? Let's face it: people's focus immediately zeros in on things like storm categories, and they tend not to notice the dire warnings later on in the forecast. Most people don't have the attention span to read a full forecast, so some kind of attention-grabbing system of saying "Forget the windspeed, this one is going to kick your ass" would do a lot of good in getting people to pack up and get the hell out. Albireo 15:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC) :::I get the concepet, trying to create a scale not based solely on wind speed, I'm just saying that's very difficult. Yes there are ways we can generally judge the destructive potential of one storm as opposed to another of the same Saffir-Simpson category but such a scale is very subjective and in meteorology, you do best you can to stay objective. The closest we could come to producing an objective scale like that is taking the wind speed, pressure gradient, wind radii, diffluence and general region of estimated landfall together to create a kind of "Combined Effects Severity Scale" for tropical cyclones, Classes I-V or I-VII or something and that's a lot of work getting all that data just to produce a classification for the storm. If there's a way to make something like that practical, I'm all for it, but I just don't think it really makes much sense right now. On top of that, what are we accomplishing? Confusing the public? The problem of people underestimating the power of these storms will never go away, IMO. Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane with 175 mph sustained winds barrelling for New Orleans and still thousands were in no hurry to leave. "We made it through all the storms in the past, why not again? The Gov't will protect us and give us what we need." Despite seeing recent disasters like Andrew, Charley and Ivan on the news, it's still hard for people to comprehend such a destructive force. They just don't want to believe the storm will be that bad. It's not a problem so much with the classification system as it is a problem with human psychology. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury]] 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC) ::::I think this is sort of the wrong approach. It's not about the Total Energy (TE), it's about the Total Destructive Energy (TDE). There are three factors which cause almost all of the damage in a tropical cyclone: Storm surge, winds, and torrential rain floods, in order from most to least damaging. Most of the other effects of a storm are negligible. The factors involved are (excluding land structure so as to allow free comparison of oceanic storm intensity) forward speed (all three), winds (surge and winds), and size (surge and rain floods). Now, there is a double weighting process: Weight the causal three for how much of the impacting three each accounts for, then weight the impacting three for how much damage they cause. Since these are also the three factors most often measured in the historical database, past storms can easily be assigned a rating. However, you then need a TLDE (Total Landfall Destructive Energy) component - different weightings are necessary depending on the coastal geography. Furthermore, a more... sort of advanced kind of description should be created for the categories. What I mean by this, is that, instead of letting the people watch videos of what happened before, or hear descriptions, it would be a lot better to show virtual explanations - a house very similar to their own getting obliterated by a hurricane that could be coming their way is a lot more effective than a house that they know is different, in a storm they know wasn't the same as the one bearing down on them. Of course, not everyone has a computer, but almost everyone has a TV. Squarethecircle 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC) :::::First off, inland flooding killed more than half of those who lost their lives in tropical cyclones between 1970 and 1999. Storm surge was in about the 20% range. I wrote my senior paper on this very thing. The most lethal misconception about tropical cyclones is that effects inland won't be as bad as on the coast. And don't forget about tornadoes. Tornadoes are a very serious threat from a landfalling hurricane. Carla produced an F4 tornado that killed like 20 people and destroyed a small town. These things are very complicated and you can't narrow it down that far. It also needs to be emphasized that we can only give the destructive potential of a storm. You're also missing the point on the way people think. People don't automatically assume an event is going to be such a horrible catastrophe and entire towns will be left in ruins. People can't wrap their minds around that. They can't bring themselves to believe that something like that might be happening. On 9/11, for the longest time people thought it was just a tragic accident despite the fact that the sky was clear and the weather was perfect. They didn't just up and say it was the worst act of violence in modern times outside theatres of war. No matter what scale you throw out there, there are still going to be hundreds, even thousands who think the storm won't be that bad. You can show video, animation, describe all the horrors of the past and many will still think you're being melodramatic. Yes, you say a storm headed for Texas has 110 mph winds and then show what 110 mph winds would do to a normal house...that will indeed raise some eyebrows but that won't give people the whole story. Minimizing human loss of life comes down to swift response of local officials and public awareness of where they live and what kind of effects they'll be looking at. It should be common sense that if you have a hurricane with 175 mph sustained winds coming at you that leaving might be a good idea. Especially if all the roads to the beach go uphill. That's not a scale problem, that's an education problem. -- [[User:SkyFury|Sky]][[User talk:SkyFury|Fury''']] 05:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Any Reason Why? Since 2001 on wiki there are 2 - 3 Main Discussion articles on a hurricane season. I dont know who changed it or why but the articles that date 2000 and before are more neat and have each hurricane/Storm with its own article. List of storms in the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season, and 2001 Atlantic hurricane season are almsot the same and this has gone on to 2007. Knowledgekid87 10:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC) :If I remember correctly, 2005 is to blame for that. People realized that with very seasons of 15, 20, 30 depressions and storms, you rapidly got to the point where articles were clunky and had far too much material. Hence the separation. I could be wrong, though.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC ::Yeah I understand how 2005 could be in that format with so much to talk about but not the others. The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season article is in that format with just 10 storms. Oh well anyways hopefully a veteran editor will come along and clean it up. Based on the storms so far in my opinion there is no need for the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season to have a branch out "List of storms in the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season" type article. Knowledgekid87 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC) :::For 2006, yeah, I can see, but for seasons of 15, 20 storms it's already unwieldy enough, and a summary of the season works better than a list of storms for the main article.--Guillaume Hébert-Jodoin 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC) ::::I agree, keep in mind though in most cases the storms themselves have their own articles so alot of info is just rewritten again. Knowledgekid87 23:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)